Hay is commonly fed to horses and is usually the largest and most expensive dietary component for adult horses. Hay waste can occur during both storage and feeding, and can add up to ≥ 40%, depending on forage type, storage method, environment, and storage length. Horses are commonly fed large round-bales and small square-bales in outdoor paddocks; however, no research exists to characterize hay waste. The objectives were to determine hay waste and economics of small square-bale and large round-bale feeders when used in outdoor feeding of adult horses. Related: Managing Manure on Horse Farms
What did we do?
Large round- and small-square bale hay feeders were evaluated during two separate studies. Nine round-bale feeders, were tested, including the Cinch Net ($147; Cinch Chix LLC), Cone ($1,195*; Weldy Enterprises; model R7C), Covered Cradle ($3,200; SM Iron Inc.), Hayhut ($650; Hayhuts LLS), Hay Sleigh ($425; Smith Iron Works Inc.), Ring ($300; R & C Livestock), Tombstone ($250; Dura-Built), Tombstone Saver ($650; HiQual), Waste Less ($1,450; JSI Innovations LLC), and a no-feeder control (Figure 1). Twenty-five mature horses were used to form five groups of five horses. Each feeder was placed on the ground in an outdoor dirt paddock. The groups of horses fed in rotation for four days, and every fourth day, groups were rotated to a different paddock. Waste hay (hay on the ground outside of the feeder) and orts (hay remaining inside the feeder) were collected daily. Percent hay waste was calculated as the amount of hay waste divided by the amount of hay fed minus orts. The number of months to repay the feeder cost (payback) was calculated using hay valued at $200/ton, and improved efficiency over the no-feeder control.
Three small square-bale feeders were tested, including a hayrack ($280; Horse Bunk Feeder and Hay Rack, Priefert Manufacturing), slat feeder ($349; The Natural Feeder), basket feeder ($372; Equine Hay Basket, Tarter Farm and Ranch Equipment), and a no-feeder control (Figure 1). Two feeders of each type were placed in separate, outdoor, dirt paddocks. Twelve adult horses were divided into four similar herds of three horses each and were rotated through the four paddocks, remaining in each paddock for a period of seven days. Grass hay was fed at 2.5% of the herd bodyweight split evenly between two feedings. Waste hay (hay on the ground outside of the feeder) and orts (hay remaining inside the feeder) were collected before each feeding. Percent hay waste was calculated as the amount of hay waste divided by the amount of hay fed minus orts. The number of months to repay the feeder cost (payback) was calculated using hay valued at $200/ton, and improved efficiency over the no-feeder control.
What have we learned?
No injuries were observed from any feeder types during the data collection period.
Hay waste differed between round-bale feeder designs. Mean percent waste was: Waste Less, 5%; Cinch Net, 6%; Hayhut, 9%; Covered Cradle, 11%; Tombstone Saver, 13%; Tombstone, Cone and Ring, 19%; Hay Sleigh, 33%; and no-feeder control, 57%. All feeders reduced waste compared to the no-feeder control. Feeder design affected payback. The Cinch Net paid for itself in less than 1 month; Tombstone and Ring, 2 months; Hayhut and Tombstone Saver, 4 months; Hay Sleigh, 5 months; Waste Less, 8 months; Cone, 9 months; and Covered Cradle, 19 months.
Hay waste was different between small square-bale feeder designs. Mean hay waste was 1, 3, 5 and 13% for the slat, basket, hayrack and no-feeder control, respectively. All feeders resulted in less hay waste compared with the no-feeder control. Feeder design also affected payback. The hayrack, basket, and slat feeders paid for themselves in 11, 10, and 9 months, respectively.
Future Plans
Future research investigating hay waste associated with outdoor feeding of adult horses should focus on different forage types and the optimum number of horses per feeder. Related: Small Farm Environmental Stewardship
Authors
Krishona Martinson, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota krishona@umn.edu
Amanda Grev, Research Assistant, University of Minnesota; Emily Glunk, Assistant Professor, Montana State University; William Lazarus, Professor, University of Minnesota; Julie Wilson, Executive Director, Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine; and Marcia
Additional information
Grev, A.M., E.C. Glunk, M.R. Hathaway, W.F. Lazarus, and K.L. Martinson. 2014. The effect of small square-bale feeder design on hay waste and economics during outdoor feeding of adult horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science. 34: 1,269-1,273.
Martinson, K., J. Wilson, K. Cleary, W. Lazarus, W. Thomas and M. Hathaway. Round-bale Feeder Design Affects Hay Waste and Economics During Horse Feeding. 2012. J. Anim. Sci. 90: 1047–1055.
Acknowledgements
The large round-bale feeder research was funded by a grant from the MN Horse Council and manufacturer fees. The small-square bale feeder research was funded by a grant from the American Quarter Horse Foundation.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Differences in preference, defined as the behavioral response of an animal to plants when a choice is given, affects not only animal utilization of forage species, but forage persistence and yield if preferred species are repeatedly grazed. Horses are known to be selective grazers, when compared to other livestock. Forage yield is an important criteria when selecting grasses for productive pastures, especially for highly selective livestock like horses. The objectives of this research were to evaluate preference and yield of cool-season perennial and annual cool-season grasses while grazed by horses.
What did we do?
Research was conducted in 2010 through 2014 in St. Paul, Minnesota. Four adult stock-type horses rotationally grazed two separate experiments. Cool-season perennial grasses were planted in replicated monocultures and grazed each month during the growing season (April through October). Cool-season perennial grasses inlcuded tall fescue, meadow fescue, quackgrass, smooth bromegrass, meadow bromegrass, reed canarygrass, perennial ryegrass, timothy, Kentucky bluegrass, creeping foxtail, and orchardgrass. Cool-season annual grasses were planted each spring and fall in replicated monocultures and grazed in May and June (spring planting) and September and October (fall planting). Cool-season annual grases included winter wheat, annual ryegrass, spring barley, spring wheat, and spring oat.
Prior to grazing, grasses were measured for yield. Immediately after grazing, horse preference was determined by visually assessing percentage of forage removal on a scale of 0 (no grazing activity) to 100 (100% of vegetation grazed). Following grazing, manure was removed, and remaining forage was mowed to 3 inches and allowed to re-grow. Plots were hand-weeded, fertilized according to soil analysis and irrigated if necessary.
What have we learned?
Figures 1 and 2. Kentucky bluegrass, timothy (photos 1 and 2) Left: pre-grazed timothy and right: post-grazed timothy), and meadow fescue were the most preferred perennial cool-season grasses with most grazing events removing > 60% of the forage, while meadow bromegrass, creeping foxtail, reed canarygrass, and orchardgrass were less preferred, with removals of < 50% of the forage (P ≤ 0.0027).
Kentucky bluegrass, timothy (Figures 1 and 2), and meadow fescue were the most preferred perennial cool-season grasses with most grazing events removing > 60% of the forage, while meadow bromegrass, creeping foxtail, reed canarygrass, and orchardgrass were less preferred, with removals of < 50% of the forage (P ≤ 0.0027). Quackgrass, tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, and smooth bromegrass were moderately preferred by horses. Orchardgrass produced the highest yield with ≥10.1 t/ha, while creeping foxtail, smooth bromegrass, and timothy produced the lowest yield with ≤ 8.7 t/ha (P = 0.0001). Quackgrass, perennial ryegrass, reed canarygrass and meadow bromegrass yielded moderately well.
Figures 3 and 4. Winter wheat (photos 3 and 4) Left: pre-grazed winter wheat and right: post-grazed winter wheat) was the most preferred annual cool-season grass with a removal of 93%, while oat was least preferred with a removal of 22% (P < 0.001).
Winter wheat (Figures 3 and 4) was the most preferred annual cool-season grass with a removal of 93%, while oat was least preferred with a removal of 22% (P < 0.001). Oat and spring wheat yielded the highest with ≥ 3.91 t/ha while winter wheat yielded the least at 1.91 t/ha (P < 0.001). This information will aid owners and professionals when choosing pasture species that maximize horse preference and forage yield.
Future Plans
Future equine grazing research should focus on evaluating horse preference and yield of cool-season grass mixtures. Research should also focus on evaluating horse preference and yield of alternative forages.
Authors
Krishona Martinson, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota krishona@umn.edu
Amanda Grev, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Minnesota; Deavan Catalano Graduate Research Assistant, University of Minnesota; Michelle Schultz, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Minnesota; and Craig Sheaffer, Professor, University of Minnesota
Additional information
Allen, E., C. Sheaffer, K. Martinson. 2013. Forage Nutritive Value and Preference of Cool-Season Grasses Under Horse Grazing. Agronomy Journal. 105: 679-684.
Allen, E., C. Sheaffer, K. Martinson. 2012. Yield and Persistence of Cool-Season Grasses Under Horse Grazing. Agronomy Journal. 104: 1741–1746.
Grev, A.M., K.L. Martinson, and C.C. Sheaffer. 2014. Yield, forage nutritive value, and preferences of spring planted annual grasses under horse grazing. Journal of Animal Science. 92; pg. 34.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Why Look at Barriers in Nutrient Management Information Flow?
The issue of manure nutrient management has been the subject of controversy and new policies in recent years as the non-point source discharge of nutrients and bacteria is substantial if manure is not managed properly. Unfortunately, there are barriers between organizations and individuals that prevent the flow of important, timely information between audience types and limits the impact and usefulness of research results. These barriers may be in the form of institutional language differences, job descriptions, or a mismatch between information outputs and inputs.
What did we do?
A national team of researchers, Extension specialists, consultants and government staff developed a survey to quantify the role, programming, and barriers to information flow between organizations and individuals regarding manure nutrient management. The electronic survey was disseminated via cooperating agencies, organizations and personal contacts to technical service providers, producers, university personnel, regulatory personnel, private sales or service enterprises and other professionals who contribute to manure nutrient management in South Dakota. Respondents were asked to indicate the relevance of information sources (inputs), information products (outputs) and collaborators (links), as well as barriers to their use. The relevance selections were transformed into scalar data and an analysis of variance was performed on the average relevance scores to test for differences based on input/output/link type and organization type.
What have we learned?
There were 139 surveys started, and 80 surveys completed. Data from partially completed surveys were, however, included in the analysis. The main categories of self-identified respondents were NRCS (n=36), Producers (n=29), University personnel (n=15) and Regulatory personnel (n=9). The remaining categories respondents were grouped into an Other category (n=22). The average relevance score for each of the information sources, information products and collaborations listed in the survey were consistent (no significant difference between organization types). As sources of information, consultation, eXtension and field days were ranked most relevant, with classroom and social media being least relevant. Similarly, consultation, field days and eXtension were ranked the most relevant means of sharing information; social media was ranked least relevant. Barriers to information sources and products were specific to the activity or product. The select ion “No barriers to use” was not an indicator of relevance. All organization types deemed producers the most relevant collaborator, followed by state, university and federal agencies.
Future Plans
The South Dakota-based survey was a pilot test for a nationwide survey being conducted in 2015. From feedback and data review, the survey has been refined and shortened to elicit the key input, output and collaborator data. With the national data in hand later in 2015, the project team looks forward to linking information producers and users in effective pathways for manure nutrient management information transmission, and ultimately, adoption.
Authors
Erin Cortus, Assistant Professor and Environmental Quality Engineer at South Dakota State University erin.cortus@sdstate.edu
Nichole Embertson, Nutrient Management Specialist, Sustainable Livestock Production Program, Whatcom Conservation District; Jeffrey Jacquet, Assistant Professor, Sociology and Rural Studies, South Dakota State University
The nationwide team who contribute to and guide the Pathways project are gratefully acknowledged. Funding provided through the South Dakota SARE Mini-Grant Program supported data collection and analysis for the survey pilot test.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Why Examine Learning Pathways in Nutrient Management?
During the 2013 Waste to Worth Conference, a session on “Nutrient Management Standards: Making Them Work Where We Work” sparked discussion on the need to match manure nutrient management (and other related topic) tools and content with the end user. This discussion also highlighted organization and institutional language barriers that also challenge information transfer among users.
Technology has opened up new communication lines between various groups, but unless we can speak the same language and recognize the goals and needs between groups, establishing effective partnerships is difficult. Furthermore, the potential and realized reach through outreach methods available to different groups is not well understood.
A map of the pathway between information producers (i.e., researchers) and users is vital, along with the identification of end user format and language necessary for comprehension and usefulness. By providing a pathway to audience types and needs, research groups can realistically identify the target groups for their specific project outcomes and produce targeted products, information sources, and formats for those end users. In addition, this hierarchal pathway allows researchers to select project partners from specific agencies and industries in their Region to communicate directly with in order to produce a tailored and more impactful product.
What did we do?
A national team of Researchers, Extension specialists, Consultants and Government Staff came together with the overall objectives to: (1) document effective information transmission methods, pathways, and formats for different audience types; and (2) demonstrate a hierarchal approach of information dissemination through various audience types. Based on input and guidance from the national team, an electronic survey was developed to quantify and qualify information source (inputs), information products or sharing mechanisms (outputs), and collaborations (existing links) between organization types. The survey also qualifies the barriers to information flow between organizations and individuals regarding manure nutrient management.
A pilot test of the survey was conducted in 2014 in South Dakota. Based on the results of that project, minor refinements were made to the survey, which is being distributed nationally in the Spring of 2015. The electronic survey is being disseminated via cooperating agencies, organizations and personal contacts to technical service providers, producers, university personnel, regulatory personnel, private sales or service enterprises and other professionals who contribute to manure nutrient management.
What have we learned?
The South Dakota pilot project gave us a peak into the viability and potential impact this national survey can have. We were able to infer important connections and barriers that will lead to very important modifications to information transfer in the future. The collaboration and input from the national team members has been critical to the development and vetting of the survey tool. Through this team, organizational language differences have emerged. Over time, we look to document these terms for future reference to a broader audience.
Future plans
The results of the national survey will be analyzed in the Summer of 2015. In the Fall of 2015, the exercise of documenting pathways based on the survey data will be conducted with a focus on data collected for the North Central Region. A similar process will be followed for other regions of the country. An intended outcome of this project is the creation of a reference document/tool and process that enables integrated research projects to identify a vetted method for successful dissemination of research results to the correct target audiences in the most impactful formats.
Authors
Erin Cortus, Assistant Professor and Environmental Quality Engineer, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, South Dakota State University, erin.cortus@sdstate.edu
Key contributors for the North Central Region are Teng Lim (University of Missouri), Amy Schmidt (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), and Jill Heemstra (University of Nebraska-Lincoln).
Acknowledgements
The nationwide team who contribute to and guide the Pathways project are gratefully acknowledged. Funding provided through the South Dakota SARE Mini-Grant Program supported data collection and analysis for the survey pilot test. The North Central Region Water Network provided funding for analysis and dissemination of data collected for the North Central Region.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Can the risk of P contamination of water be reduced? This lesson, developed from presentations given at Waste to Worth 2015 gives learners the opportunity to:
Identify how current and previous management can affect phosphorus risk,
Recognize various tools to determine phosphorus risk in different situations, and
Discover one method of decreasing potential water pollution from phosphorus loss.
Background
Deanna Osmond – P Loss Assessments Verses Water Quality Outcomes
Phosphorus indices provide relative loss ratings that then have a corresponding management response. Because most state Phosphorus Indices are qualitative it is not clear how the relative loss rating corresponds to actual phosphorus inputs into the receiving water and how the receiving water would react to these additions. Even with qualitative Phosphorus Indices, unless the water resource has a specific Total Maximum Daily Load, it is not clear how losses correspond to water quality outcomes. These issues will be discussed in the context of the 590 Natural Resources Conservation Standard for nutrient management. Full proceedings are available here.
Legacy Phosphorus
Andrew Sharpley – How Legacy Nutrients Affect Farm Conservation Measures
Terrestrial phosphorus legacies encompass prior nutrient and land management activities that have built up soil phosphorus to levels that exceed crop requirements and modified the connectivity between terrestrial phosphorus sources and fluvial transport. River and lake phosphorus legacies encompass a range of processes that control retention and remobilization of P, and these are linked to water and sediment residence times. We provide case studies that highlight the major processes and varying timescales, over which legacy phosphorus continues to contribute phosphorus to receiving waters and undermine restoration efforts, and discuss how these phosphorus legacies could be managed in future conservation programs. We have learned that conservation practices that we implement on the land to trap phosphorus runoff, can eventually transition from sinks to sources of phosphorus. Full proceedings are available here.
Heidi Waldrip – Effects of Long-Term Poultry Litter Application on Phosphorus Distribution
Very few studies have investigated the long-term effects of manure or litter application on soil P distribution: almost no data exist on manure impacts on calcium-associated organic P in soil. Sequential fractionation techniques, coupled with phosphatase hydrolysis, have allowed for greater understanding of manure/litter effects on soil P distribution and transformation. A fairly standardized designation is separation of extracted P into labile P (H2O- and NaHCO3-P), moderately labile P (NaOH-P; assumed to be associated with amorphous Al/Fe oxides and organic matter), and stable P (HCl-P; assumed to be Ca-associated phosphates). Incubation of the extracted fractions with excess P hydrolyzing enzymes enables further characterization of organic P as phosphomonoester-like, nucleotide-like, phytate-like, or non-hydrolyzable organic P.
The specific objectives of this study were to investigate effects of long-term poultry litter application and land-use type (cultivated, grazed/ungrazed improved pasture, native rangeland) on soil P distribution in watershed-scale plots. The goal of this work is an improved understanding of how litter impacts P cycling and availability in these agronomically important calcareous soils. Full proceedings are available here.
Tools to Assess Phosphorus Risk
Andrew Sharpley – Identify and Synthesize Methods to Refine Phosphorus Indices from Three Regional Indexing Efforts
Despite the success of the Phosphorus Index concept in state-level nutrient management planning strategies as part of the NRCS 590 Standard, there remain concerns about the effectiveness of the Indexing approach for attaining water quality goals. Different versions of the Phosphorus Index have emerged to account for regional differences in soil types, land management, climate, physiographic and hydrologic controls, manure management strategies, and policy conditions. Along with this development, differences in Phosphorus Index manure management recommendations under relatively similar site conditions have also emerged. To date, we have learned that the individual projects with slightly differing objectives have shown there to be a paucity of field measured runoff, against which to reliably compare Index performance. Thus, several off-the shelf and pre-calibrated models (e.g., APEX) were tested to provide adequate phosphorus runoff information to validate Indices. Use of off-the-shelf models can provide unreliable estimates of phosphorus runoff, while calibrate models can provide more reliable estimates when given adequate site information. Full proceedings are available here.
Pete Kleinman – Modeling Phosphorus Runoff in the Chesapeake Bay Region to Test the Phosphorus Index
Modeling P runoff plays a fundamental role in the Chesapeake project. For each physiographic region, watersheds were identified where the SWAT model and the local P Index would be run to compare results. This objective has proven challenging to the SWAT model, as it requires a common scale of spatial inference with the P Index, i.e., the field. At the start of the project, the performance of SWAT was evaluated with regard to its representation of hydrologic and P cycling processes. It was determined that a version of SWAT that better represents variable source area hydrology, TOPO-SWAT, is best suited to the uplands of the Chesapeake Bay region. In addition, it was determined that the original P routines in SWAT are insensitive to the key nutrient management factors considered by the P Index (rate, timing, method and form of P application). Therefore, a new set of P routines was developed to correct the problem. Full proceedings are available here.
Deanna Osmond – Estimation of phosphorus loss from agricultural land in the Southern region of the USA using the APEX, TBET, and APLE models
Models predicted runoff accurately, but were unable to predict sediment or phosphorus losses accurately in many cases. Not surprisingly, models performed better when calibrated but even so predictions were problematic for particular locations and constituents (e.g. runoff in NC under no-tillage conditions and sediment at many sites). Full proceedings are available here.
John Lory – Estimation of phosphorus loss from agricultural land in the Heartland region using the APEX model: a first step to evaluating phosphorus indices
Full calibration provided excellent fit for runoff and total P (NSE>0.8 for each) and marginal fit for sediment (~0.3). In contrast, the BPJ resulted in unacceptable estimates of sediment and P load, and marginal fit for runoff volume (NSE~0.4). These results emphasize that failure to calibrate APEX with runoff and water quality data (the BPJ approach) will result in poor estimates of annual sediment and total P loads. Full proceedings are available here.
Reducing Loss
Josh Payne – Removing Phosphorus from Drainage Water: The Phosphorus Removal Structure
The P removal structure has removed approximately 67% of all dissolved P that has flowed into it over a 16-month time period. In addition, it has handled all flow volume from every event, including a runoff event that resulted in 600 gpm. That single event delivered 2/3 lb of dissolved P, in which the structure removed 66%. While the structure is removing P as predicted based on P loading, the structure has greatly outlasted the goal of removing 45% of cumulative dissolved P in one year. This is due to the below average rainfall received over the last two years. Full proceedings are available here.
Lara Whitely-Binder is an outreach specialist with the University of WA’s Climate Impact’s Group. Her presentation describes the Western U.S regional climate outlook and projected impacts to agriculture. She examines the impacts (some positive, some negative) on water supply, changes in yield, rangeland fire risk and forage quality, and milk and beef production.
Livestock Grazing In a Changing Climate: Implications for Adaptive Management
Justin Derner, PhD is a Rangeland scientist with the USDA-ARS in Cheyenne, WY, and the director of the Northern Plains Climate Hub in Ft. Collins, CO. This presentation discusses livestock grazing in a changing climate and the implications for adaptive management on rangelands. Adaptive management is a process by which a manager is constantly evaluating the system and making adjustments to reduce risks and uncertainty. View Dr. Derner’s proceedings paper for the conference.
USDA Northwest Region Climate Hub Update
Bea Van Horne, PhD is with the USDA Forest Service and the director of the USDA for the Pacific Northwest Regional Climate Hub. She gave an update of the Pacific Northwest Climate Hub. Climate change is expected to have significant impacts on agriculture. The climate hubs aim to deliver region-specific information and serve as a clearinghouse for providing science-based information to agricultural managers.
Beef Cattle Selection and Management For Adaptation To Drought
Megan Rolfe, PhD is an assistant professor in animal science department at Oklahoma State University and a beef extension specialist for the state of Oklahoma. The presentation discusses her program’s research findings on beef cattle selection and management for adaptation to drought. She discusses areas such as water intake, quality and quantity of available water, and animal performance and carcass characteristics under water restriction.
Adopting Policies and Priorities to Encourage Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices
Susan Capalbo is Professor and Department Head of Applied Economics at Oregon State University. She gave an presentation discussing ways to encourage the ag community to adopt practices and policy makers to create policies that are beneficial in terms of climate and food production.
Acknowledgements
This page was developed as part of a project “Animal Agriculture and Climate Change” an extension facilitation project to increase capacity for ag professionals. It was funded by USDA-NIFA under award # 2011-67003-30206. If you have questions about any of the topics or have problems with links, contact Crystal Powers cpowers2@unl.edu or Jill Heemstra jheemstra@unl.edu.
For questions about the AACC project, contact Rick Stowell rstowell2@unl.edu or Crystal Powers.
Dr. Beverley Henry – Associate Professor, Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology
Dr. Henry is a Principal Research Fellow in the Institute for Future Environments at Queensland University of Technology, and an agricultural consultant. She has almost 30 years’ experience working in academic, government and agricultural industry organisations on research areas that include managing for climate variability, sustainable land management, resource use efficiency, food security and climate change and greenhouse gas mitigation. She participates in advisory and technical groups for several national and international organisations including the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, International Standards Organisation and the International Wool Textile Organisation.
Droughts and Climate Extremes: Lessons for the Future
Dr. Mike Hayes – Director, National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Dr. Michael Hayes is currently the Director for the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) located within the School of Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He became the NDMC’s Director in August 2007 and has worked at the NDMC since it was founded in 1995. The NDMC now has 17 faculty and staff working on local, tribal, state, national, and international drought-, climate-, and water-related issues. Dr. Hayes’ main interests focus on drought risk management strategies. Dr. Hayes received his academic degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Measuring the Environmental Hoofprint of Dairy and Beef Production Systems
Dr. C. Alan Rotz – Agricultural Engineer, USDA Agricultural Research Service, University Park, Pennsylvania
Life cycle assessment requires good data on the inputs and outputs of the system, and process level simulation of farm or ranch production can help provide this information. Life cycle assessment is best used to monitor the impact of system changes such as those imposed by climate change.
Dr. Rotz is an Agricultural Engineer with the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. His work has included the development, evaluation and application of a farm simulation model used to evaluate and compare the performance, economics, and environmental impacts of farming systems. His current work emphasizes the measurement and modeling of gaseous emissions from farms and the environmental and economic sustainability of farm production systems. Al grew up on a dairy farm in southern Pennsylvania. He holds degrees from Elizabethtown College and The Pennsylvania State University. He spent three years as an Assistant Professor at Michigan State University before joining the Agricultural Research Service in 1981. For 16 years, he led the East Lansing Cluster of the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center. Since 1997, he serves as the lead scientist of the integrated farming systems project at the Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit in University Park, Pennsylvania. He is a Fellow of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers and a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Michigan. He is also a member of the American Dairy Science Association, the American Forage and Grassland Council, and the Pennsylvania Forage and Grassland Council.
How climate change impacts manure management systems
Karl Czymmek, J.D. – Senior Extension Associate, Cornell University PRO-DAIRY Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Changing weather patterns will require dairy producers to further intensify manure management in order to meet environmental expectations and regulations. Considerations, impacts and potential solutions will be discussed with an eye toward differences between humid and arid regions.
Mr. Czymmek:
Member of the PRO-DAIRY team since 1999.
Statewide extension responsibilities in the area of nutrient management for field crops with emphasis on CAFO and environmental regulatory issues.
Key collaborator with the Nutrient Management Spear Program at Cornell University.
Holds a BS degree from Cornell University majoring in Agronomy and a JD (Juris Doctor) degree from University of Buffalo School of Law.
Admitted to the NY Bar in 1994.
Has work experience on farms and in the private and public sectors.
Works with producers, public and private planners, researchers and state and federal agency staff to communicate issues relating to farming, regulations and science with the goal to help design and implement practical solutions that enhance farm production and sustainability.
Adapting Agriculture to Sustainably Feed the World
Dr. Marty Matlock – Executive Director, Office for Sustainability, Biological & Agricultural Engineering, University of Arkansas
Future challenges and opportunities for animal agriculture to increase food production with fewer resources and less environmental impact.
Dr. Matlock is Executive Director of the UA Office for Sustainability and Professor of Ecological Engineering in the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department at the University of Arkansas. He received his Ph.D. in Biosystems Engineering from Oklahoma State University in 1996, is a registered professional engineer, a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, and a Certified Ecosystem Designer. Dr. Matlock has co-authored three books, more than 50 peer-reviewed manuscripts, and has been awarded two US and five international patents. The focus of Dr. Matlock’s research is development of technologies and processes to increase the resilience and effectiveness of human-dominated ecosystems. His work is interdisciplinary by nature; he works in urban, agricultural, and rural systems with ecologists, engineers, architects, social and political scientists, agricultural scientists, economists, and business leaders to solve complex problems. His interdisciplinary work has been recognized by the leading organizations in architecture, landscape architecture, and sustainable design with over 25 national and international awards. He coordinates academic, research, outreach, and facilities efforts in sustainable systems across the UA campus, and has led numerous sustainability initiatives from local to international in scope. He serves on the US Secretary of Agriculture’s Committee for the 21st Century, as Chairman of the Cherokee Nation Environmental Protection Commission, on the Arkansas-Oklahoma Governor’s Commission for the Illinois River, and as science advisor for sustainability for 12 food and agricultural product companies.
Most farmers and ranchers are acutely aware of weather and how it factors into their risk management planing. Climatologists have indicated that the trend toward more extreme events and greater extremes is going to continue. This has many implications for animal agriculture producers. The farmers featured in this Waste to Worth panel all provided their perspectives on adapting to extreme events through diversity, building resilience, and keeping an eye toward long-term profitability.
Diversity, Resilience and Manure Management with Cover Crops
A former ag teacher, Keith Berns understands that you need to be open to multiple ways of achieving a goal. His desire to build resilience into his farm system led to a business selling cover crop seeds that emphasize diversity. He outlines several scenarios where he uses cover crops on his farm and also several ways his seed customers utilize diverse cover crop and annual forage mixes. High stocking densities naturally incorporate manure, and residue helps conserve and hold valuable moisture during/after extreme rainfall events. [Nebraska/Kansas]
Perspectives On a Changing Climate
Dr. Sandra Matheson, DVM (retired) raises grass-fed beef cattle on her northwestern ranch. Weather extremes have created more dust, mud, and she has seen an increase in disease and health issues with cattle. She utilizes the decision-making process, holistic management, and planned grazing to create a system with the greatest amount of adaptability and resilience for her environment and its potential extremes. Her goals converge around building the soil. [Washington]
Grazing Dairy Finds Plants that Work in Low Water Environments
Michael DeSmet watched his cows when they entered a new paddock and noticed something surprising – they liked weeds. Upon further investigation, he found out that the weeds they were selecting were high-protein, palatable, and could survive on very small amounts of precipitation. Michael was no stranger to making changes; he had already converted the family dairy operation into a grazing-based system selling milk into niche markets. He continues to examine forage options for his pastures that allow the farm to utilize limited water, extend the grazing season, and improve soil quality. [New Mexico]
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Seattle was the site for the second Waste to Worth conference (March 30-April 3, 2015). Each proceedings paper include a one-page submission by the author, presentation slides and (90% of the time) a recording of the presentation.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Nine round-bale feeders, were tested, including the Cinch Net ($147; Cinch Chix LLC), Cone ($1,195*; Weldy Enterprises; model R7C), Covered Cradle ($3,200; SM Iron Inc.), Hayhut ($650; Hayhuts LLS), Hay Sleigh ($425; Smith Iron Works Inc.), Ring ($300; R & C Livestock), Tombstone ($250; Dura-Built), Tombstone Saver ($650; HiQual), Waste Less ($1,450; JSI Innovations LLC), and a no-feeder control (Figure 1). Twenty-five mature horses were used to form five groups of five horses. Each feeder was placed on the ground in an outdoor dirt paddock. The groups of horses fed in rotation for four days, and every fourth day, groups were rotated to a different paddock. Waste hay (hay on the ground outside of the feeder) and orts (hay remaining inside the feeder) were collected daily. Percent hay waste was calculated as the amount of hay waste divided by the amount of hay fed minus orts. The number of months to repay the feeder cost (payback) was calculated using hay valued at $200/ton, and improved efficiency over the no-feeder control.
Dr. Mike Hayes – Director, National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Dr. C. Alan Rotz – Agricultural Engineer, USDA Agricultural Research Service, University Park, Pennsylvania
Karl Czymmek, J.D. – Senior Extension Associate, Cornell University PRO-DAIRY Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
